More Votes Than Voters In Ohio

Watch This

ya, like this is a big surprise....*sighs*

I wanna have Jon Stewarts love child

IFILM





























- Television: Jon Stewart's Brutal Exchange with CNN Host

and by "people" he means the supreme court

CNN.com: "President Bush said 'I am confident in the judgment of the people.' "

I guess he forgot that last time, the people voted for someone else.

if you believe in omens

ESPN.com: "After a gut-wrenching week in the ALCS, Boston has taken the drama out of Game 7. Johnny Damon's two home runs, including a second-inning grand slam, has the Sox up 10-3 in the ninth and the Yanks on the verge of a historic collapse."

Bush supporter criticizing him 2 weeks before tight election..hmmmm.

CNN.com - Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties - Oct 19, 2004: "NEW YORK (CNN) -- The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, 'We're not going to have any casualties.'"

I wonder what that means? Does it mean he thinks nobody is going to die? Or does it mean he thinks nobody who matters is goinng to die?

More reasons why voting should be required

If you required every adult to vote, reguardless of felony convicitons or anything else you would wipe out what is beginning to look like rampant denial of voters' right to cast a ballot. And it's not because they are white or rich...

E-Voting Machines / Vote Integrity

Bush forgets he owns a tree growing company...

Bush's Timber-Growing Company

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company."  Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

From factcheck.ORG (as opposed to factcheck.com):

"In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income."

Liar or Idiot?

Why lie? It can't really help you that much and quite obviously you WILL get caught and swiftly. So, logically, that leaves idiot. I suppose there is an arugment for just being too lazy to keep up on the details of your own business ventures. But, if this is the case, this is the man running our country (or is he? see reports of Bush being fed answers during the debate) with a total disregard for the complexity, details or truth of the job.

the deciding factor.

Cheney Blunder Lauded Anti-Bush Web Site

I really didn't have an opinion one way or the other in terms of who won or didn't, during the VP debate. I agreed, obviously, with what Edwards said, not Cheney. But in terms of convincing undecided voters, which is really all that matters I couldn't objectively say.

That is, until I read this particular story in the link above. I think it was good for Dick to send everyone to factcheck.org. If only he had actually done that. He actually sent them to factcheck.com where there is a message from someone specifically stating why not to vote for Bush. This is comical, but not critical.

Honestly, the only reason I can think that the Bush camp would send people to factcheck.org is because they REALLY believe they are being honest about Kerry. I like the site, because they research the facts and let you know who is lying about what.

So, seems to me that sending people to a website that proves most of your allegations against Kerry are false is not a strategic move. *shrugs* And on that I say Edwards behaved smarter than Cheney.

The best thing I could say about Cheney was that he outperformed Bush. THAT shouldn't be good enough, but probably will be for some.

VotePair || Uniting Progressives Through Strategic Voting

VotePair || Uniting Progressives Through Strategic Voting

A gift from my blogging friend Rowan. :)

Those pesky lib- i mean CONSERVATIVE flip-floppers.

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Rumsfeld questions Saddam-Bin Laden link

Why Not?

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

-Plato

I have been thinking about this idea for awhile. I know most likely there has to be some point I am missing as to why this simply isn't a good idea, but here it is anyway.

Americans should be compelled to vote.

We are compelled to support our government both financially and defensively. Regardless of choice, we pay taxes and at the whim of our elected officials, we can be made to take up arms and kill those deamed our ememy.

Seems to me that making someone show up on election day and give their opinion (even if that opinion is that Mickey Mouse can do a better job of running the country than the guy who has the job today) isn't that much of an imposition.

Compelling a citizen to participate in his democracy is so vital to his sucessful representation he should be required to do it for his own good.
We have all sorts of laws on the books that require people to act in defense of their own well being (seatbelt laws for example).

I realize there are details to be dealt with (felons, mental capacity, etc.) but ask yourself: Are they really prohibitive to the concept itself. I don't think they are. The details can be worked out elsewhere.

It can be seen as sacrifice of freedom, to be compelled to vote. There is an arguement for that. However, considering we are a country who compells its citizens to pay for its government and die for it as well, mandatory voting seems a rather minor sacrifice of freewill.

But will it happen? No.

During my short time working in politics, I learned things from people who have been involved for years, and witnessed things myself, that have led me to the opinion that Republicans don't want everyone voting. A great deal of time and effort is spent discouraging large numbers of minority and lower income voters from reaching the polls. Not necessarily overt efforts to block them from the polls (although those do exist - see Florida November 2000) but psychological efforts to alienate and convince these voters they do not matter, their vote doesn't count, even that their vote may be criminal.

Republicans have traditionally (in most recent times) been very successful in discourgaing from voting, citizens who would most likely vote against them in large numbers. There IS a reason Democrats spend time and effort going door to door on election day, asking people to go vote, even offering them rides to the polls. Because it generally works in their favor!

I am sure someone is currently outraged that I would make such an accusation. So, don't take my word for it, take a Republican's:
Bob Herbert:
Curbing black vote aids Republican election bids | The Arizona Daily Star

But, my point here is that I think generally Conservatives will be against this concept and perhaps Liberals would not. To break it down further, I assume Libertarians will dispise the idea and Populists would embrace it. Prove me wrong or reinforce my assumptions, but let me know what you think.

Thank you Mr. Springsteen

 
"If you mislead your people into a war, and that costs a thousand lives and many, many more wounded and 200 billion dollars of taxpayer money, and it turns out the grounds for going to war have been false, you lose your job," said the rock star.

Bruce Springsteen, as quoted in an AFP story on Oct 1, 2004 reguarding why he is participating in the "Vote for Change" tour.

Vote for Change Concert Tour | America Coming Together (ACT)

CBS News | Uncommitted Voters Give Kerry Nod

CBS News | Uncommitted Voters Give Kerry Nod | October 1, 2004 08:30:49

See, some people can think for themselves. ;)

People fall for this crap.

My new favorite website www.factcheck.org

Let's set aside for a moment that the ad described below is just shitty politics. How dare they use the images of people dying on September 11th and the attack against Russian schoolchildren a few weeks ago for political gain.

Quoted from www.factcheck.org:
An ad by the Republican group "Progress for America Voter Fund ," mostly funded by wealthy GOP donors, suggests Kerry can't defend against terrorists "who want to kill us." It shows images of Osama bin Laden and the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The ad claims Kerry has "a 30-year record of supporting cuts in defense and intelligence," misleading charges that we've de-bunked before. It also accuses Kerry of "endlessly changing positions on Iraq," a claim that is without factual basis.

It begins by showing 9/11 plot leader Mohammed Atta, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists while the announcer slowly intones: "These people want to kill us."

It presents more images of the attack on Russian school children, the attack on a Spanish commuter train, and firemen in the smoking rubble of the World Trade Center after September 11, 2001.

...THE TRUTH...
"Since 1996, the John Kerry who once opposed the Apache helicopter and wanted to cut Tomahawk cruise-missile funds by 50% has evolved into a steady supporter of military budgets."

It's true that Kerry voted against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995, and also voted against the Pentagon authorization bill (which provides authority to spend but not the actual money) in 1996. But in his nearly 20 years in the Senate Kerry has voted for Pentagon budgets far more often than he's opposed them, and hasn't voted against one for the past eight years.

Here's what Kerry said on the Senate floor before voting to give Bush the authority:

Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002) Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

That's consistent with Kerry's llater criticism of Bush for failing -- as Kerry sees it -- to secure enough help and support from other countries. And that's been Kerry's position ever since.

When the San Francisco Chronicle combed through 200 of Kerry's speeches and statements on Iraq, it found instances of "clumsy phrases and tortuously long explanations" that made Kerry's position difficult to follow. But it also found that "taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago."

Why.

Why, when by all accounts the Swift Boat accusations have been proven false based on testimony from numerous sources including reports documenting events, do so many people believe what they said?

Why, when it is illegal for anyone from a policial campaign to be communicating with an organization like the one that put out the Swift Boat commercials, did Bush escape seemingly unscathed, when it was revealed a high-level member of his own campaign was directly involved with Swift Boat group?

Why was Bush rewarded with a bump in the polls when, according to current information available, his campaign was directly involved in perpetuating information which is generally accepted as false?

thanks CBS - for nothing.

You know what annoys me the most about this CBS nonsense? It's that nobody seems be paying attention to the fact that the available and undisputed facts seem to remain the same. Bush didn't show up for work for about six months and he failed to get a required medical exam to maintain flight status. In otherwords, at the very least, serving his country was not his top priority at the time. At the very worst, he may have been AWOL and clearly, allowed to get away with it. These documents, fake or otherwise, don't change that. Interestingly, every time Bush tries to answer these questions, his answer changes. I guess when George calles Kerry a flip-flopper, he is calling on the "takes one to know one" school of thinking.

CBS. Did they screw up, probably. They should have consulted a few more experts before they went public. But, that said, lets count how many ridiculously irresponsible stories were published in the 90's about the Clinton Administration. The press publishes first and fact-checks second. This has become standard operating procedure, thanks to the emergence of "news" sources like the Drudge Report and the American Spectator where facts, by all appearances, are not a priority. Conservative news sources seem to have perfected the art of throwing out whatever they can come up with to trash Democrats and when the truth comes out, not only do they manage to escape a sullied reputation (because their audience has no expectation of truth, only trash?) but they manage to do significant damage in the proces, regardless of being proven false.

Why do conservatives seem to be so good at this game and liberals so bad????

getting started.

hello. here it is, my first blog. exciting eh?